brady1993

6 minutes ago, YouRams said:

Agree with everything you say so here's one for you, is he now easier to replace as a midfielder than a right back?

We miss his energy in midfield so do we go out and buy/loan an engine midfielder instead of a new right back? Are they easier to come by than a solid right back? 

Thing is I don't think we entirely need to replace him as a midfielder. I think we have options there namely in Sibley and Thompson. And with McGoldrick fit we likely play him as a 10.

And maybe maybe Smith if I'm to give him the benefit of the doubt in that Rosenior sees something there that I've not so far.

3 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Why do we do this? Is it really necessary?

I feel like I mostly laid out the why in the post but I get that some of things can get lost in a big post. 

- So that the midfielders who aren't Bird can push right up looking to exploit space 

- So that wingers can take up aggressive positions high and wide

- So we have more bodies in build up play to play through a pressing team (Also helps the couple CBs we have who may not be the best on the ball)

- To have cover against the counter and so possession can be recycled to keep up pressure.

Is it necessary? Yes and no. As with any set of tactics it's a choice. It's necessary for what we are trying to do but it wouldn't be necessary if we set up differently. And we've set up this because it will likely pay off against we shall face week in week out once its properly embedded and we've found the right balance.

So I'm putting this post together because since the start of the season there have been question marks on Knight starting at RB which have ranged from mildly questioning to outright ridiculing. 

But very frequently what gets missed is why Knight is starting there, why he's good at it and why it actually relies on his skillset. So I'm going to play devil's advocate and argue for Knight should start there.

Tactics

I think that Rosenior identified that a few things going into the season; we have talent in midfield, we likely have technical superiority and teams are likely going to sit back and try to counter or press and try to counter. And so he's built tactically from that point.You can see this in how our flanks are set up.

Wingers play high and wide and are both fast, phsyical and good 1v1. A compact opposition has to stretch or leave a man free. A team that presses always has to be wary of that threat in behind if they overcommit. Also it helps provide space in the centre for our midfield to take advantage of.

Meanwhile our fullbacks essentially play as midfielders when we have the ball. They tuck right into the middle operating from a much more central postion and given the responsibilities of a deep midfielder in getting the play going and supporting the play. This provides extra functional bodies in the build up play making it theoretically easier to pass through a press and it allows other midfielders to go take up dangerous positions further up field as they don't have to worry so much about the build up. Same applies to the wingers who can play high and wide because the fullbacks are functionally midfielders.

This isn't something revolutionary that Rosenior has done. In fact it's almost identical to what Guardiola has done in the past (who often would play midfielders like Delph at fullback).

Inverted fullback

The demands on this role are different that was is typically called for. They need to very comfortable on the ball in central areas, their passing needs to be good, they need to know what to do positionally when they are in midfield and they need that high energy to cover ground, support the attack and quickly get back into position. Functionally it operates a lot more like a wide midfield role on the ball.

Why Knight ? 

Simply put he excels at all of the above qualities is the primary reason whilst being sound defensively. There is a good reason why most our success in attacking has happened down the right. Playing him there essentially allows us to cheat and play another midfielder

The second reason is with a decent number of midfielders going into pre-season but no right back in sight with restricted dealings in the window. It made sense to coach someone into the role and Knight ticked the most boxes.

Why not X instead of Knight ? 

Odurah - Seems a decent prospect but looked a touch raw and shaky in pre-season. Likely isn't ready just yet.

Smith - This could work but Knight has more energy and crucially Smith hasn't had the same coaching time to coach him into the role.

Thompson - isn't as phsyical as Knight which could get exposed defensively and would need coaching into the role.

Stearman - This is a joke right ? He looks too awkward at CB on the ball never mind in midfield areas and would get exposed for pace.

Roberts - The role benefits from someone playing on their stronger side so they can open their body easier. Also needed at LB as Fozzy can't really play that role reliably.

New Right Back - Well yeah... but that's increasingly unlikely to happen but it won't be for a lack of trying.

Should he play midfield anyway ? 

Now that's a tricky question. Because we have a balance problem in midfield (at least some of the time) that you can point to Knight as a fix. And Id agree with that to a large degree that Knight as one of the three would help. The two counterarguments I might make are that problem might be better solved by playing either Sibley or a fit McGoldrick and by moving Knight from there you might be just shifting a problem rather than fixing it overall.

TLDR; The way we play calls for someone comfortable in midfield at right back. And Knight is likely the best at it we have.

(PS you may be able to tell I'm bored because I'm ill at home) 

17 hours ago, europia said:

I don't think I mentioned results at all costs. It's really about a style of play suitable for success in L1. 

Thing is what does that even mean ? 

Styles of play don't get worse going down the leagues. They get more uncommon because attitudes about tactics tend to filter from top to bottom, as managers find themselves out of their depth they drop down and it can get harder (not impossible) to find the right kinds of player.

The only thing we need to have in mind is teams are more likely to sit back and lump it. Which they would do regardless of how we play. So we need an idea of how to open them up, which is stuff we are trying to implement tactically.

19 hours ago, Jourdan said:

But isn’t results-driven thinking exactly what has allowed us to build a highly competitive squad?

It is easy to see we have been able to retain many of our young players and attract new signings who could have joined clubs in the Championship because they want to be part of a winning project.

Players want to win games, not style points. They see the possibility of promotion, the possibility of a Wembley occasion if we do well in the EFL Trophy, the possibility of playing in front of 25,000 crowds every other week.

You can’t sell that idea to players if results are secondary to philosophy. Results matter and keep fans coming through the turnstiles and entice players who wouldn’t normally join.

Rosenior is going to have to prioritise results at some point, especially because internally, players and staff are talking about promotion. 

Having a philosophy and building an ethos is great, but the way we’ve built our squad lends itself to a quick promotion and a need for results.

If we were going for a slow and steady rebuild, I think we would have reached out to an entirely different profile of player.

We started the season with barely any players, a short pre-season and transfer restrictions. Any players coming in would have been aware that a promotion this season is far from a guarantee. Pushing for it for sure but not nailed on at all. 

The primary reason we targeted the players we did was to stabilise, which was vital in the postion we found ourselves. In the window we have been largely limited to experienced players who've perhaps fallen out of favor or not quite at the level they were or players who are wholly untested. What we've tried to do is bring in experience according to how we want to play, with the idea they could do a job in the championship and can hit the ground running. They will allow us to rebuild structure and more quickly build a firm tactical plan from which we can have continuity. Whilst targeting young players to support the team and develop.

There is a gap between results at all cost and slowly developing. And whilst I don't think we are planning on sticking around in league 1 it's important to note that large sections of the club need/needed rebuilding.

My overall point about focusing on philosophy and tactical identity right now is that ultimately it will lead to better results over the full course of the season and beyond. The quibbles people have had so far are not really a problem with the tactical ideas at play and more than as a club/squad we are still pretty undercooked. I.e. it looks iffy at times because we aren't fluent at it yet. This would be the case with any tactical identity we tried to pursue most likely. 

If we switched to solely focusing on results right now, it might (its a big might as well) result in better results in the short term. But that kind of thinking only ever works short term because your squad never really develops as a squad. It's why every poohouse team you see tends to have a very hard limit on how far they can go.

Ultimately the results really aren't bad right now either. 7 out 12 puts us on target for top 6. If we can hold our nerve, maintain that pace and focus on what we need to do better then my bet is that it clicks around the winter and we see a surge in form. Which leaves us in a better place for subsequent because we'd have something rock solid to build from. 

15 hours ago, angieram said:

I think it's a lack of confidence to change it up instinctively during games! 

Coaching is all well and good, but the best players know when to try the unexpected.

I think that's partly coming down to our situation right now. 

Players aren't super match fit for the most part what with the short pre-season. They are also getting accustomed to what we are doing tactically and their team mates.

All of which leads to a player playing safer than they should because they aren't quite backing their ability, they don't instinctively know the role and the roles of the players around them and they don't instinctively know their teammates for the most part.

It's easy for us to sit back and say "oh you should have played a 40 yard switch to NML as he'd made a run and was open". But a player has a split second to make that decision more often than not and so unless they are either very good, very confident or at least very aware of everyone on the pitch they will often play safe.

The other thing I don't think people realise is that defaulting to playing directly is often the absolute safest thing for a player to do in a given moment.

15 hours ago, europia said:

Fair points. I really don't think that Derby County have the luxury of opting for 'philosophy first, results second'. We are in L1 and need to play for the results that will get the club back in the Championship as soon as possible. A very ordinary Shrewsbury nullified our approach without too much difficulty. We need to be able to change tactics mid game when this is happening.  

I actually this is the wrong way to think. 

If we embed the philosophy now at this point in the season then it will be the bedrock of success later in the season and going into the championship.

If we focus on results at all cost now we will end up a tactical mess of a team and probably looking back at a middling to average season and nothing to build on.

We have to look beyond short-termism right now, it's what lead to us being in league 1.

2 minutes ago, Jimbo Ram said:

I think possession and domination are two different things…

They are and they aren't.

You can have high possession without dominating the game. But when I think of a truly dominant performance from a team they have more possession than the opposition and usually by a distance.

Overall I'm more positive about Rosenior now than when he was first announced. 

I think there is a few things people should be keeping in mind. 

First is that using average xG to compare us to the rest of the league is premature to draw any conclusions. It's a noisy statistic and I highly doubt 4 games is enough to draw a meaningful conclusion from or to compare us to the rest of the league.

Secondly is that we are tactically trying to embed something new with a largely new squad and with a really short pre season. It takes time for these to properly embed and gain fluidity. And we likely haven't even seen the true plan A yet what with the lack of a RB and McGoldrick not being fit so far. So any talk of plan b or shifting things is premature because frankly we need this time to properly embed what we are trying to do for this season and beyond. People talk about lack of bravery but ultimately that comes from the above. It's much easier to be brave when match fit, tactically clued up and familiar with your teammates.

To be honest with all that said I think 7 from 12 points is a really good return. It's positive because we are picking up points at a good rate whilst misfiring a bit as things embed tactically. And I don't expect we will be in full flow at least for another month or two.

I think the plan tactically at an abstract level is a good one and if well executed will see us being able to dominate games and break down teams that play a low block more comfortably than last season. Two physical fast wingers stretch the pitch and provide a option to go long. They can stay forwards almost the entire time which keeps the opposition wary as we can break easily if they overcommit. They can do this because of the inverted fullbacks who support the midfield. Both of these factors also lead in turn to allowing a lot of space and attacking freedom to the two 8s or the 8 and the 10 in midfield so they can in theory hurt teams. Its a good plan with solid tactical thinking behind and we've only seen glimpses of it firing so far.

My only concern is the persistence with trying a midfield with Smith and Hourihane as the advanced options which has looked unbalanced and stagnant since the friendly with Leicester. This is the part that I just don't see Roesnior's think aside from a misguided attempt to keep things tight, go with experience when in doubt and play the new players. Its just not working though and needs addressing going forwards. Especially as I think we have the players to fix the problems. Any of Sibley, Knight, McGoldrick or Thompson played over one of them likely sees a better balance.

If nothing else I think the time has come to evaluate whether we are actually going to get a RB before the window closes and if not perhaps it's time to move Knight from that position and convert Smith to it.

TLDR; It takes time to set a team up from nothing, time we haven't had. Whilst there can be concerns so far this is better than expected for this point in the season.

12 hours ago, sage said:

I agree about Hourihane,  just suggest why LR makes that decision. 

Disagree about McGoldrick. If he was borderline in terms of being ready,  why risk him. 

I do think we will be transformed when we get a new RB and Knight can make up a midfield three with Bird and Hourihane 

But what I'd say is if he's borderline why is he on the bench ?

I do mostly agree about pushing Knight into midfield but I also feel like this is a situation we could be mostly solving already.

2 minutes ago, Caerphilly Ram said:

Smith in for Sibley, Davies still out. Here’s hoping we can get that away win monkey off our backs in the league 

Not going to lie I still don't quite how that midfield is supposed to work and I feel like I'm missing what Smith is adding in that more advanced role.

1 hour ago, WestLondonRam said:

Totally agree, But if his job isn't too overlap and his job is to defend, as already said Fozzy is a better Defender. I just don't see Roberts as an improvement on what we already have. 

Dont think Fozzy is that much better defensively to be honest. Still his job is to do more than defend, on the ball we are using the full backs heavily as auxiliary midfielders alongside Bird to help instigate the play. It's why Knight has been particularly effective in the role. Roberts looked a good fit there preseason and has done OK so far with some minor hiccups. 

But Fozzy frankly can't really play that role.

12 minutes ago, sage said:

I think he wants Hourihanes experience on the pitch,  though I agree he looks knackered in the last third of games. I think he was only going to use McGoldrick if we were chasing the game. I imagine the extra three days means he will come on tonight. 

The thing is though is when is experience just overridden by fatigue and not keeping up with the game? Because at a certain point it doesn't count for anything when decisions become poor, when technique becomes sloppy and when the legs go right? 

Like I can see how you leave him on when you are chasing because he has got the ability to win a game but when you are holding a lead and getting ragged in the heat, I just think its flawed thinking to leave him on. Especially with a packed schedule to come.

Get it about McGoldrick but I feel like if the remit was he would only come on if he was needed then I think Saturday kinda called for it. Because more than anything we just needed it to stick more in midfield areas and he's excellent at that.

37 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said:

I think we probably actually agree - it's about drawing the press in the right way and it's also about balance. And you make a really good point about midfield. We're lucky in that all our midfielders are comfortable receiving the ball, but when it comes to them from defence they should be sufficiently aware of what's around them to normally be playing on the half turn, so they can immediately move forward with the ball, instead of playing it straight back into defence without considering a forward option.

When I talk about midfield balance or overall balance of the team is because that can dramatically effect how easy it is. Easiest example of this was the Oxford game with Smith and Hourihane were a bit too happy to stay in position and wait for the ball, not really showing or not really spinning in behind. Because of that Oxford could 'cheat' with their press and really constrain the space. When Sibley comes on he started running into space they'd left and now they can't constrain space to the same to degree.

To be honest I often think when people complain about playing it out from the back they are more complaining about it done poorly without realising it. For example there were multiple times Saturday where Stearman gets the ball in space, dawdles and then goes to Cashin or to Wildsmith. At best it goes nowhere, at worst we are under pressure. But what gets missed is the easy ball to Knight or the slightly harder (but still on) ball to Bird to progress.

1 hour ago, Srg said:

Great to have your principles and first way of playing, but you sometimes do just need to hit a channel a couple of times to push the press back to give you more space to play it from the back. 

I think what you've alluded to here is part of the reason why things in midfield have looked better when Sibley has played. He keeps the opposition honest by running in behind or into the channels so they can't compact the space as much. It's also likely why Rosenior is playing his wingers high and hugging the touchline.

I think the thing that's often missed when we play it out from the back part of the point is to draw the press. 

If a team is compact in their shape they can be very hard to break down however if they press high and you can beat their press they are often left wide open. 

If we just go long in the face of a press your kinda playing into what they want i.e. a 50-50 followed frequently by a turnover in possession.

Of course their is risk but if you've set your team up right then it should be a calculated one. But it's why it's really important to have the right personnel and to have really drilled the little movements in build up play.

We shouldn't always go short of course but we should be trying to for the most part even if its just to work an angle for a long pass. Thats part of the reason why we have two fast, strong wingers who play high hugging the touch line. They keep the opposition's press honest and stretch the pitch and if the opposition do cheat a little it leads to an easy long ball for them to run onto.

If anything the problem isn't that we try to play out too much it's more getting the balance right in defence and midfield, getting a good amount of coaching and match time in players so they can be sharper with it and having the right people in the right positions.

Really depends on who's fatigued for this one. 

Assuming no one else is back to fitness. I'd be thinking about playing Smith or Thompson over Hourihane given he played the full 90mins and looked shattered after 60. And probably Dobbin for one of the wingers. I'd start Sibley but with the idea of taking him off on the hour mark.

Only just got round to watching the game. Thought it was a decent-ish for the win for the most part and didn't really think Barnsley threatened that much. 

Few random thoughts:

 - The midfield looked better balanced in midfield first half with Sibley. And I don't think he should have come off when he did.

- Stearman makes me appreciate that Davies has actually got a lot better on the ball as Stearman looked a good deal shakier in possession and wasn't make build up play easy.

- Whilst I'm there I think Stearman could have done better for the goal.

- To reiterate everyone Cashin was fantastic.

- I'm still not sure what Rosenior sees in Smith, especially in a more advanced position.

On a more general point I don't think we got the subs right. Hourihane's legs had gone after an hour and NML looked knackered as well. Whilst Sibley was tiring I don't think he should have been first off as he still had some running in him and he kept them honest in midfield by providing a threat. If the thinking was to get control of the midfield I can understand that but in that case I think you have to look at Hourihane first and then maybe Sibley at the same time. In particular I thought we were crying out for McGoldrick to come on so the ball would stick a deal more (probably for Sibley) and we needed his ability to get on the ball and link play.

Also am I imagining things or don't we have 5 subs ?  

Personally would have gone something like:

Hourihane -> Smith/Thompson 60mins  

NML -> Dobbin 60mins 

Sibley -> McGoldrick 65mins

Collins -> Thompson/Smith 80 mins 

Fozzy on late if you need him in the air.

1 hour ago, Ambitious said:

Plenty - Luke Plange at the back end of last season. Tom Lawrence, at different periods in his Derby career, Lee Buchanan, Martyn Waghorn, Kamil Jozwiak - not to mention Jason Knight and Max Bird both went through a rough patch in the 20/21 season but were still afforded more opportunities than Sibley. 

I think you can add Shinnie to that last. He had a fair few streaks of looking pretty shaky. Same with Morrison too. 

12 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Called it

Thing is I both kinda thought it would be and think its flawed. The midfield of Smith, Hourihane and Bird just doesn't look right. The balance has been off and its too easy to defend against with neither Hourihane or Smith doing enough as 8s.

It just makes us too easy to pen in and pressure. The pattern of the game will likely play out the same as against Oxford or Leicester in the preseason where they click on to surround Bird and then press us high with us only really breaking out on occasion down the right.

1 hour ago, Marriot Ram99 said:

I thought Roberts was good defensively on Saturday and made 2 key interceptions where his speed and balance where quite key and he has a good reading of the game for a young defender and  looks a better out and out defender than Forsyth who doesn't get tight enough imo. 

Forsyth is better going forward and can put in some good crosses and has the ability in the air but to me I'd go for Roberts again who looks like a player who as the games go on this season, will get better and better just like Tomori when he was on loan here. 

Thing is Roberts is better at the job we need him to do. He's better at being involved in the build up play and working the ball around in deep. 

Yes it sometimes went wrong for him against Oxford but part of that is the midfield wasn't functional with Oxford feeling like they could ignore the two 8s. And like nearly everyone it clicked for him once Sibley came and the midfield had a better balance. 

On the flip side we have plenty of evidence that you really wouldn't want fozzy playing that kind of role.

3 minutes ago, Ramarena said:

With 2 option for each role and 5 subs I’d love to see us return to the Mac style of winger rotation to keep the opposition guessing.

I've always thought it's a smart idea for a couple reasons. 

Wingers tend to be mercurial, very often blowing hot and cold. Sometimes they've got the beating of somebody and sometimes they don't. Also fullback is one of the least likely positions on the pitch for a sub to take place, so by encouraging your wingers to go 100% for 60 mins and then subbing them you can create a mismatch in terms of energy and pace in a place it really matters. 

42 minutes ago, DCFC27 said:

I think he’d be better playing central, in our team. From the left I think he looks pretty ineffective. Might see more from the right, but Mendez Laing seems to look really good from that side at the moment. 

He looked pretty ineffective on Saturday because the supply was cut off to him. Notably when the midfield got fixed he started to do alright on the left.  

9 minutes ago, jimtastic56 said:

Agree. But he can’t be like a traffic cone either. Has to lose his man and make himself available. Only has to move 3 yards.

Thing is he was doing that pretty much throughout. Just players around him in the build up need to back themselves a bit more to pass to players under a little pressure.

Oxford did somewhat cleverly shift to man mark and make sure they cut down the passing lanes into him. 

To be honest I'm not sure it was so much Bird didn't get a half yard enough on his marker and more that players around him didn't have the confidence to give him the ball. There were a fair few times I noticed where players just didn't back themselves to execute the pass into Bird when it was on but there wasn't huge room for error.

The thing is Bird of all the people in the squad you can pass to him under pressure and be confident we retain it. And that's perhaps what we need to get better at as a team because it isn't always going to be easy passes into wide open space. I suspect that will improve as the season goes. 

The other thing is, when it's happening the two more advanced midfielders need to recognise this more and show for the ball more than they did on Saturday.